PGA Tour: He Who Beats Justin Rose Wins The Masters: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

Not really "Notes" this week, just the start of a Masters thread.

There's increasingly little new to say about The Masters, for the most part there's not much new to say about the field, the most likely contenders, or even the course.

The old habit of picking the winner via a process of elimination and seeing who is left when the music stops seems to result in the same cast of characters year after year, largely because nothing much changes.
This year I suppose the emergence of DeChambeau adds some scientific interest, there's the bizarre weight loss by Brooks Koepka, Jordan Spieth's loss of form, and always the breathless anticipation to see what outfit Tiger Woods is burdened with.

But Justin Rose has only been out of the Top 14 once (T25) in the past eight Masters, he's in good form, his mate Fooch is back on the bag and you'd think he'll be more focused than ever.

If not Justin, WHO?

Dustin Johnson and Rory have 8 x Top Tens between them in their past nine appearances, both are in great form and I'm going to go for the winner from those three no matter how hard I try.

But something a little more sporty: How about Thursday's 10.42 a.m. tee time with Charley Hoffman, Oosthuizen and Leishman playing together - any one of them, perhaps all three should be great each way investments.

Then there's Team GB which hasn't been as strong for 30 years, and is deeper than ever. Casey, Fitz, Tommy & Poults join Justin & Rory, with Hatton, Eddie Pepp and Matt Wallace (leading rookie?) all improving fast.  

Best rank outsider? Corey Conners played as an amateur a few years ago, dusted off an opening 80 with a second round 69 and won a ballsy victory in Texas.

There's so much written about The Masters elsewhere, that I'll leave it at that, except to say the weather is a bit iffy, rain earlier this week, and breezy with chance of thunderstorms thru the weekend.

Agree 100% Diggers.

(wait for the stuck key ... )

A number of years ago, and after a round of golf and with drinks on the table, I was speaking directly with a touring professional (not so much these days, but he's still in the game). This professional played on a President's Cup team with Tiger Woods. Now, this is going back a few years (2010+), but he said that Tiger was a really pleasant guy to be around and even a bit dorky. From everything I hear, Tiger's well liked among his peers. But, hey, you don't need actual experience in things to form an opinion.

Shotrock wrote:Agree 100% Diggers.

(wait for the stuck key ... )

A number of years ago, and after a round of golf and with drinks on the table, I was speaking directly with a touring professional (not so much these days, but he's still in the game). This professional played on a President's Cup team with Tiger Woods. Now, this is going back a few years (2010+), but he said that Tiger was a really pleasant guy to be around and even a bit dorky. From everything I hear, Tiger's well liked among his peers. But, hey, you don't need actual experience in things to form an opinion.

People (families not just golfing pros) that I've met from Isleworth say the same sort of thing, Sr. And CHIII, who knows him very well, won't hear a bad word said against Tiger.

But that's just fine, perception is everything, that's how we choose our political leaders as well; voters don't need actual experience to form an opinion. And 2016 just goes to show how wrong a vocal minority can be!

kwinigolfer wrote:Well said Digs, I'm sure that's right. And I know I've snarked about Beckham before and been shot down.

But all we have to go by is perception and that's usually via the media.

And perception is then in the eye of the beholder. Why do I find Nicklaus and Luke Donald come across as a perfectly decent bloke, but Miller and Paul Casey as smug, self-serving pr1cks? The reverse could well be true, I most certainly don't know!

But I DO think Woods laps up the publicity he's earned; he could certainly come across as more approachable.

True enough, and to be honest the reason I’ve wanted him to win isn’t because I think he’s a nice guy. I just think it’s an incredible turn around, I couldn’t stand Woods when he was first on the scene, I do though like exceptional performers in sport, though I accept the fact they are so much better than their peers can make events dull.
Also, I think it’s a generally interesting story (I know you don’t agree which is fair enough). Child prodigy, not really the right colour to be a golfer (he simply must have experienced conscious and unconscious bias many times, especially as I’d imagine his Dad rubbed people up the wrong way) brilliant player, downfall in a massive way, big injuries, recovery and to a degree revision of his swing and game, and for some redemption.
Whether there are many more wins in the bag, who knows. I do prefer golf tournaments when he’s in the mix though.

McLaren wrote:I am sensing that there is not the love for Tiger on here that you will find if you only pay attention to golf via golf journalism.  This kind of reminds me of 1997 when as juniors me and a few others had stayed over at someones house to watch Tiger win and came into the club the next week only to have that joy utterly wiped out by the douches in the club bar. And it was pretty obvious that had he been a white British player the mood would have been very different.

It seemed a given then, as it still does now, that Tiger is the most exciting player the game has ever seen with an ability to entertain sports fans like no other player ever has.  This is not however the vibe you get from a certain vintage of golfer who has never and will never warm to Tiger.  Why did this board have to be full of you guys?


Navy

The marital problems may have been his own doing but I hope you are not saying that those caught up in the US opioid crisis have brought that upon themselves?

How much interest was there Mac when Weir, Johnson, Cabrera, Singh, Scott, Reed,Watson etc won the Masters? Did we fill pages about them? We had virtually no traffic about it. We are parochial people by nature, we don't especially like seeing yanks win the majors. No doubt you'll be trying to paint some sort of racial prejudice into this as you always do when there is none. Much like the Yanks pretty much ignore when their own don't win events in sport like Ryder Cups, Open etc

I'm sick of hearing nonsense that this is the greatest comeback in sport from the media too, what complete horse merde. If something has an indefinite period in which to occur, and then it finally happens after several years of attempts, how on earth is it a comeback? Isn't it just a reward for persistence?  40 majors have gone under the bridge since he last won one.

This has nothing on Medinah or something like Bob Champion/Aldaniti which were spectacular comebacks given the circumstances. Woods has been trying to make this happen for several years, that's not what I call a comeback at all, lazy, dreadful journalism to claim it as such.

Are you seriously trying to absolve Woods of his opiate issues? He's responsible for his medical team, just as he's responsible for the terrible team whose advice led to his injuries in the first place (plus himself for doing it to himself). Woods is the architect of his own downfall in every respect Mac, stop taking the millennial line and always having to blame someone else.

Ah, but Johnson, Reed, Watson et al were never nominated for the Presidential Medal of Freedom, as TDub has now been.


PS: Agree about Bob Champion . . . . . not quite on a global scale, but remarkable enough.

super_realist wrote:

McLaren wrote:I am sensing that there is not the love for Tiger on here that you will find if you only pay attention to golf via golf journalism.  This kind of reminds me of 1997 when as juniors me and a few others had stayed over at someones house to watch Tiger win and came into the club the next week only to have that joy utterly wiped out by the douches in the club bar. And it was pretty obvious that had he been a white British player the mood would have been very different.

It seemed a given then, as it still does now, that Tiger is the most exciting player the game has ever seen with an ability to entertain sports fans like no other player ever has.  This is not however the vibe you get from a certain vintage of golfer who has never and will never warm to Tiger.  Why did this board have to be full of you guys?


Navy

The marital problems may have been his own doing but I hope you are not saying that those caught up in the US opioid crisis have brought that upon themselves?

How much interest was there Mac when Weir, Johnson, Cabrera, Singh, Scott, Reed,Watson etc won the Masters? Did we fill pages about them? We had virtually no traffic about it. We are parochial people by nature, we don't especially like seeing yanks win the majors. No doubt you'll be trying to paint some sort of racial prejudice into this as you always do when there is none. Much like the Yanks pretty much ignore when their own don't win events in sport like Ryder Cups, Open etc

I'm sick of hearing nonsense that this is the greatest comeback in sport from the media too, what complete horse merde. If something has an indefinite period in which to occur, and then it finally happens after several years of attempts, how on earth is it a comeback? Isn't it just a reward for persistence?  40 majors have gone under the bridge since he last won one.

This has nothing on Medinah or something like Bob Champion/Aldaniti which were spectacular comebacks given the circumstances. Woods has been trying to make this happen for several years, that's not what I call a comeback at all, lazy, dreadful journalism to claim it as such.

Are you seriously trying to absolve Woods of his opiate issues? He's responsible for his medical team, just as he's responsible for the terrible team whose advice led to his injuries in the first place (plus himself for doing it to himself). Woods is the architect of his own downfall in every respect Mac, stop taking the millennial line and always having to blame someone else.

Yep, it’s got nothing on, let’s say, Crystal Palace staying in the Premier League last year.
It’s not like 2 years ago you were saying anyone who thought Woods could win a major again was an idiot, that the chances were he’d never last more than a few tournaments. That he was completely shot with his stupid hacking swing. Now apparently all he needed all along was a bit of persistence!

Yes, we can be wrong Diggers. I didn't think he could win another major. I was wrong, but that doesn't make it some sort of miraculous comeback.

Funny how he's changed his swing to stop it being like a mad axeman though isn't it and reduced his swing speed? Finally he's engaged that third braincell of his.

It’s not that you were wrong, it’s people like you that make the comeback such a story by so completely writing him off when he started the comeback. You didn’t say you thought it a little bit unlikely that he’d win again, this is what you said in September, 2017:
“When is this chump going to call it a day? He's like a punch drunk has-been boxer coming back for another shot at the title. It's pathetic.” That’s just one of many quotes where you completely wrote him off, said anyone who thought he’d win again must be on crack.
Easy to forget eh? Now, you’re writing as if really it’s not that big a deal and a bit of a fuss over nothing. You clearly thought it was absolutely mission impossible at one stage. Or hang on, am I just taking all those comments too literally?

McLaren wrote:Weirdly there is so much interest in Tigers win everywhere but on this golf forum.

No question Tiger gives good picture...

As a golfer the man is pretty special, not many can do what he's done on a golf course. His technical ability, shot making, short game and mental strength are exceptional. He's single handedly brought the game to another level. For me what's special about this win is who he was up against to win it. Two of the most in form major winners Francesco and Koepka. He beat the new generation, was tougher mentally, produced the shots under pressure and made the right decisions under pressure. Pure sporting theatre and entertainment.

Now let's not make a god out of him, he's not the Messiah. He's just a very very good golfer.

Diggers wrote:It’s not that you were wrong, it’s people like you that make the comeback such a story by so completely writing him off when he started the comeback. You didn’t say you thought it a little bit unlikely that he’d win again, this is what you said in September, 2017:
“When is this chump going to call it a day? He's like a punch drunk has-been boxer coming back for another shot at the title. It's pathetic.” That’s just one of many quotes where you completely wrote him off, said anyone who thought he’d win again must be on crack.
Easy to forget eh? Now, you’re writing as if really it’s not that big a deal and a bit of a fuss over nothing. You clearly thought it was absolutely mission impossible at one stage. Or hang on, am I just taking all those comments too literally?

Are you really so pathetic and sad that you went back to 2017 to look for a quote? Jesus Diggers, you've got more time on your hands than I thought. I thought teachers like you were always moaning about the time you have to spend working?

I'm not writing as if it's not a big deal, he's shown steady improvement over the time I made that statement (at least I'm bold enough to make predictions), it's not as if this is a "great comeback" when he's had dozens of attempts at it. If he'd won the Masters 6 weeks after surgery, now that would have been something.

He proved me wrong by returning from what looked like a serious career nosedive, but he hasn't done it overnight, so all these people going overboard about it being "astonishing" clearly have missed that he's climbed from 1500 in the world to top 15 in the last 2-3 years.

Yes, I didn't think he would win another major, but it's not all that remarkable when his progress has been steady over the last few years. People are going well over the top about this.

super_realist wrote:

Diggers wrote:It’s not that you were wrong, it’s people like you that make the comeback such a story by so completely writing him off when he started the comeback. You didn’t say you thought it a little bit unlikely that he’d win again, this is what you said in September, 2017:
“When is this chump going to call it a day? He's like a punch drunk has-been boxer coming back for another shot at the title. It's pathetic.” That’s just one of many quotes where you completely wrote him off, said anyone who thought he’d win again must be on crack.
Easy to forget eh? Now, you’re writing as if really it’s not that big a deal and a bit of a fuss over nothing. You clearly thought it was absolutely mission impossible at one stage. Or hang on, am I just taking all those comments too literally?

Are you really so pathetic and sad that you went back to 2017 to look for a quote? Jesus Diggers, you've got more time on your hands than I thought. I thought teachers like you were always moaning about the time you have to spend working?

I'm not writing as if it's not a big deal, he's shown steady improvement over the time I made that statement (at least I'm bold enough to make predictions), it's not as if this is a "great comeback" when he's had dozens of attempts at it. If he'd won the Masters 6 weeks after surgery, now that would have been something.

He proved me wrong by returning from what looked like a serious career nosedive, but he hasn't done it overnight, so all these people going overboard about it being "astonishing" clearly have missed that he's climbed from 1500 in the world to top 15 in the last 2-3 years.

Yes, I didn't think he would win another major, but it's not all that remarkable when his progress has been steady over the last few years. People are going well over the top about this.

I’m on holiday, it’s Easter. It too about 20 seconds to find the quote, there were so many. What you don’t see, even now, is how idiotic it is to have a got at someone for overemphasising a comeback, which you yourself said was impossible. Fine to be wrong, utterly moronic for you to get involved with the hyberole debate, because that’s what your initial points were all about. That is literally the definition of hypocrisy.
And you’re still trying to argue your case, and you call Woods thick. At least he’s got a backbone.

Kwini

It will come as no surprise to you but I dispute that "diva" could be applied to Tiger and that "Woods laps up the publicity he's earned".

When I think of diva what comes to mind is behaviors such as being temperamental, can't deal with things going against them, throws tantrums, blames those around them, is generally difficult to get along with.

Given that, as I mentioned above, Tiger hasn't sought publicity (to the point where he hasn't given the media anything of note in 25 years) all we can know about him is his personality on course.  And his on course record is not that of a diva, he knuckles down under pressure, holds himself responsible for poor play, has never blamed a caddie, thrived under adversity.  Could there be a less diva'ish on course persona?  (and I hate to mention it be the archetypal diva is Garcia) In fact what little we do hear about Tiger the person is that he is well liked by other pro's and people in the game. What has he done that you think fits the description of a diva?

Back to the lapping up publicity, have you been following a different Tiger.  He was the most famous sportsperson in the world and all we have are a handful of magazine interviews, attendance of the bare minimum of public events, no use of social media, very few TV appearances outside golf and a general aversion to the public eye.  The guy has spent his entire life shutting out the rest of the world, much like the diva discussion I can't think how someone could be more averse to courting publicity.

super_realist wrote:
How much interest was there Mac when Weir, Johnson, Cabrera, Singh, Scott, Reed,Watson etc won the Masters? Did we fill pages about them? We had virtually no traffic about it. We are parochial people by nature, we don't especially like seeing yanks win the majors. No doubt you'll be trying to paint some sort of racial prejudice into this as you always do when there is none.

Speak for yourself, I don't support golfers based on nationality. I would happily watch DJ, Fowler, Finau, Xander and many others win a major, as long as they don't beat Tiger of course.

How are the current crop of pro's feeling about Tiger beating them to a major, after all they have been defeated by a old and badly bruised, both mentally and physically, Tiger?

Brush it off as a one off? He managed to put his swing together on a Sunday but it's unlikely to happen again. We won't see that control from Tiger again on a sunday back nine in a major.

Have self doubt? He just beat all the in form players playing their best golf and the top players now have to wonder if they are as good a crop as they previously thought?

Relish getting to compete toe to toe for majors with their hero? No chance, no one (even me) likes Tiger enough to give him majors at their own expense.

Use it as a learning opportunity? Since Tiger's prime there hasn't been a player with his killer instinct and recovering from back nine errors was possible because pro golf has been a more gung ho exercise over the last decade.  I am not sure Molinari and Brooks were aware of how fatal their errors on 12 were going to be.

McLaren wrote:How are the current crop of pro's feeling about Tiger beating them to a major, after all they have been defeated by a old and badly bruised, both mentally and physically, Tiger?

I think they fully appreciate and are over the top happy for Tiger... but DEFINITELY in a "Well if it couldn't be me, I'm glad its him" kind of way. And if he continues winning, I'm sure they'll continue to be pleased, as the attention Tiger brings benefits all of them in the long run... but again... only to the extent it doesn't cost THEM their own major.

As a golfer I have the utmost respect for Tiger, he is a truly magnificent player and competitor and I am extremely grateful for what he has done for and continues to do for the game.

However he also used his dead Dad to apologise via a Nike commercial for cheating on his wife with pawrn stars, and for me, that tends to loose you a touch of respect as a person...

Some interesting teams are lining up for the Zurich Classic in nine days' time:
Day/Scott - as promised, the Presidents Cup trial run

Garcia/Fleetwood - can't imagine why Tommy would add this to his schedule; he's hosting the British Masters a fortnight later and then the PGA the following week. Starting to over-commit himself.

Horschel/Piercy - defending champs

Kisner/Scott Brown - 2017 runners up from Aiken

Rahm/Ryan Palmer

Cantlay/Reed

Bubba/JB Holmes - odd couple I would've thought.

Kings Charl/Louis - more Presidents Cup foreplay

Els/Immelman - ditto, but rehearsing their moves from the dug-out

Poults/Horsfield - Old pro with his protege

Grace/Harding - more Pres Cup warm-up

Padraig/Shane

Wire

If Nike said I could keep a my hundred million dollar endorsement contract I would parade my dad's dead body on a commercial, never mind just mentioning him.

Kwini

Who did Cantlay do to deserve that?

Fair enough Mac

I know we don't normally give porn recommendations on here but I find it hard to believe anyone wouldn't want to watch this.

Top notch porn:

It is often said that Tiger did not "grow" the participation side of the game and his achievements only meant that pros became richer. I have not checked recently but as far as I can remember golf participation has been on a gradual decline since the 80's or 90's and it would therefore look like Tiger didn't really get people playing. But listening to the The Cut podcast this week shaun Micheel did not dispute the overall participation numbers argument but raised what I thought was an interesting point. He claimed that Tiger transformed high school and college golf in the US. Suddenly golf was a desirable avenue for gifted athletes and instead of perusing other sports kids were choosing to focus on golf. More people may not have been playing golf overall but the number and quality of players in coaching programs has increased.

This doesn't seem like a terrible hypothesis when you consider the current crop of extremely talented young Americans who would have all started such a decent tot he top just as Tiger was in his prime.

I am wondering from those more in tune with the US college golf scene whether you wold agree with this analysis from shaun Micheel?

Mac... let me take a stab at it...

No question there's been a contraction of facilities/players at the local level (at least here in the states), but the question that nobody asks is... could it have been even worse or started even earlier had there never been a Tiger? IMO there's a strong case to me made it would have been.

The way I've heard/read it... Course construction was already at it's saturation point by the time Tiger arrived. The huge bump in new facilities was likely a massive overreaction to what he might bring to the sport, so it quickly moved from saturation to massive over saturation.

But the BIG problem was (and remains today)... ACCESS. Oh there's enough courses, but there's still a massive "functional" lack of access to most all except the upper middle class and above. It's driven by high cost, not enough courses WHERE they could make a difference. There's been plenty of new grow the game initiatives like First Tee over here, but the problem is, if the family hasn't got the money, where do the kids go to take the next step? Then those kids get off into jobs, and young families, and golf becomes less a priority before it gets a chance to be ingrained in them.

But at the "competitive level"... which you are defining as High School and College teams, IMO Tiger's had a HUGE influence. When he burst on the scene, he showed the way of the future... POWER. And pretty much most the current crop of PGAT players from young 30's down thru their 20's acknowledge his influence. So on that part I don't have to guess... I KNOW... because THEY say so.

Mac, robo,

Two things:

1).Shaun Micheel might be right, but the proportion of overseas college golfers has increased, the Jon Rahms of this world at the big colleges but the Abraham Ancers at smaller colleges. Some programmes are populated almost entirely by overseas "students", the East Tennessees, Augusta States, but seldom by minority Americans or those from muni, public access courses.

2).Interesting stat from the AP this morning:
Tour purses have increased from:
~1997: $70.7M

~2019: $340M. And that excludes bonus programmes like the FedEx Cup bounty.

I'm sure the Tour's charitable contributions haven't increased in line, and can't imagine that much of this has percolated down to the public course scene, most likely fewer of them around now and certainly not five times as many!!

The rich are getting richer, and no-one in the game (that anyone is interested in listening to at any rate) is complaining about that.

I went to an invitational collegiate golf tournament on April 8/9 at White Manor Golf Club (just outside of Philadelphia). About 20 teams (5-10 golfers per team), not the top golf schools, but schools like Villanova, Drexel, Colgate, St. Johns, etc. I did not see one African American competing, but there were a number of non-US born players. Anecdotal, but interesting.

Boy, could these guys drive the ball. I'm guessing they were not much behind the average US touring professional -- proving to me that once again it's mostly the short game that defines those who make it big time.

I imagine there are more South Korean, Chinese or Indian heritage playing in the college ranks than Americans of colour or relative poverty.

Robo

I guess it is not as sexy as a story as Tiger bringing loads of players to the game but I would totally buy that Tiger reduced the rate of decline rather than increased the rate of take up.

On the access issue I have no doubt that finances are huge part of it but it feels like there is more to the it than that. The club where I started offered junior memberships for well under £100 and yet all my golfing buddies were middle class. For whatever reason the kids I played football with just didn't play golf, and it just wasn't questioned. There was definitely some sort of class divide going on. I wonder if it is like an inheritance trap of sorts, if the parents aren't members of a club then the kids won't be.

Kwini

I guess Tiger might have inspired the internationals to follow his path to stardom as well as the American kids. I know that I thought going to Stanford would have been the "coolest" thing ever for a while.


Shotrock

I have heard people complain that Tiger has not encouraged more BAME kids to take up the game but overcoming the socio economic barriers of entry will take more than one black guy doing really well at golf.

Mac,
Your "robo" comment is interesting. I'm kinda fascinated by the fact that there is a handful of Indian-heritage players on and around the ET, but not too many black Brits as far as I know.
I WOULD say that I imagine golf is more accessible in GB&I than it is in the U.S.
But don't worry about lads playing football, so long as they're playing something, that's the main thing. There and here. And they might catch on to golf when their knees give out.

kwinigolfer wrote:Mac, robo,

Two things:

1).Shaun Micheel might be right, but the proportion of overseas college golfers has increased, the Jon Rahms of this world at the big colleges but the Abraham Ancers at smaller colleges. Some programmes are populated almost entirely by overseas "students", the East Tennessees, Augusta States, but seldom by minority Americans or those from muni, public access courses.

2).Interesting stat from the AP this morning:
Tour purses have increased from:
~1997: $70.7M

~2019: $340M. And that excludes bonus programmes like the FedEx Cup bounty.

I'm sure the Tour's charitable contributions haven't increased in line, and can't imagine that much of this has percolated down to the public course scene, most likely fewer of them around now and certainly not five times as many!!

The rich are getting richer, and no-one in the game (that anyone is interested in listening to at any rate) is complaining about that.

Every single mainstream sport has increased similarly.

Kwini

Another related anomaly from UK football is the lack of Uk asian players at almost all levels of the game. The Uk has a huge population of people with South and south east Asian heritage who seem to love football and yet these players don't make it anywhere in the game. This will no doubt trigger a few people on here but the BBC did a documentary on this once and the conclusion was basically that youth coaches consciously or unconsciously just couldn't see players who looked Asian as talented.

I suspect the issue with golf is a little different because black and asian players are not even turning up to join the clubs.

Super


You constantly make that claim, so here is your chance to test it.  From this article you can see how the PGA tour prize money changed over the Tiger era.

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2014/08/06/measuring-the-tiger-effect-doubling-of-tour-prize-money-billions-extra-into-players-pockets-060801/

From 1990 to 1996 PGA tour purses increased from $82m to $101m.  An increase of $19m over  6 years, or 3.53% growth per year.

From 1996 to 2008 (The Tiger era) Purses increased from $101m to $292m. A increase of $191m over 12 years, or 9.26% growth per year.

PGA tour purses were growing at 3.53% per year before Tiger and 9.53% after.  (A Tiger effect or was it the same for other sports?)


I have provided the numbers for golf and now if you could provide some data on other sports we can see whether or not they matched pro golfs growth rate during the Tiger years.

For starters here is the tennis mens US open numbers.

Purse growth of 9.4% from 1990 to 1996 and then 5.8% from 1996 to 2008.


From http://www.espn.com/espn/wire/_/section/tennis/id/8157332


Ok, so now here are the figures for wimbledon. (but I could only find the total purse (men and woman, all events) but here are the numbers.

1990 to 1996 - 9.2% growth
1996 - 2008 - 5.15% growth

https://www.totalsportek.com/tennis/wimbledon-prize-money/

Per Wiki, Total First Place Money for the 1975 PGATour season was $1.48 Million

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_PGA_Tour#Tournament_results

At that time, I think first place checks were 20% of the purse, so that equates to a total purse fund of approximately $7.4 Million

So if the numbers are correct above

1975 $7.4 Million
1997 $70.0 Million
2019 $340.0 Million

So in Gross Terms, Purse went up nearly 10x in the 22 years prior to Tiger and nearly 5x in the 22 years Post Tiger.

OK, Robo, go do your comparison with the CPIW, but that fact is that purses went up in the years prior to Tiger at a comparable rate Tiger. And Purses went up in all sports tremendously in the late 90's with the cable and satellite carriage fees.
Think ESPN and ESPN2, and USA Network, and especially Golf Channel. And Tim Finchem was able to ruthlessly exploit these opportunities with the Main TV Networks.

Coupled with Tiger and a rebound from slow purse growth in the early 1990's , it was the Perfect Storm for Tim Finchem and PGATour to exploit.

GPB wrote:
Coupled with Tiger and a rebound from slow purse growth in the early 1990's , it was the Perfect Storm for Tim Finchem and PGATour to exploit.

 Well at least you got part of your analysis correct. It was a perfect storm for Tim Finchem to exploit and he did a masterful job exploiting it. But without Tiger as the central element to an all it would have never happened to the extent it did, not even close.


EDIT: To be clear... the above chart is running 5 year PGA Tour PURSE Growth Rates...

Looking at the chart in my prior post... what we DON'T know is what the growth rate would have been without Tiger at the point where he is marked...  For all we know... that the last two dots could be a level line...

So to find out WHY there was that last big spike... I tend to go to the source... the TV Executives that were paying the rights fees that was fueling that purse growth...  

Going back to 2000... this is what Sean McManus, President of CBS sports was saying then....

"I don't ever remember an athlete, whether it's in a team sport or individual sport, I guess with the exception of Michael Jordan, who can so dramatically affect the amount of people watching a tournament," CBS Sports president Sean McManus said. "It's true at the regular PGA Tour events and it's certainly true at the major events, also."

"Tiger's effect on golf is even greater than Michael Jordan's was on the NBA," McManus said. "His effect on television and the viewership of professional golf is almost impossible to overestimate."
 

Any suggestion that Golf purses were growing in similar fashion to other major sports in America is a fallacy.  

Bottom line... Comparing 8-year periods of PGA Tour golf purses to purses in Baseball (MLB), Football (NFL), and Basketball (NBA)... the following 3 things are TRUE:

1. Golf purses were growing at a much SLOWER rate than the other 3 sports in the 8-year period prior to the "Tiger Bump"

2. Golf purses grew at a much FASTER rate than the other 3 sports during the 8 years of the "Tiger Bump"

3. Once Golf Purses had reached their saturation point.. they returned to their SLOWER growth rates than the other 3 sports again. Here's the data...

robopz wrote:Any suggestion that Golf purses were growing in similar fashion to other major sports in America is a fallacy.  

Bottom line... Comparing 8-year periods of PGA Tour golf purses to purses in Baseball (MLB), Football (NFL), and Basketball (NBA)... the following 3 things are TRUE:

1. Golf purses were growing at a much SLOWER rate than the other 3 sports in the 8-year period prior to the "Tiger Bump"

2. Golf purses grew at a much FASTER rate than the other 3 sports during the 8 years of the "Tiger Bump"

3. Once Golf Purses had reached their saturation point.. they returned to their SLOWER growth rates than the other 3 sports again. Here's the data...

Nobody is claiming it is AMERICAN sports, golf is a global sport, so compare it to GLOBAL sports like F1, Tennis, Football, Athletics etc

Super

My examples were tennis, a global sport. Where golf had nearly double the growth rates of tennis during the Tiger period.

If you are so sure there was no Tiger bounce how come you don't have links to any information showing that golf had the same growth rates as all other sports. What was the information that convinced you that there was no Tiger effect?

Robo: You are correct we don't what would happen in Tigerless world.

But
We do know that LPGA purses went up after 1997.
We do know that Senior Tour Purses went up after 1997
We do know that Int'l Tour Purses went up after 1997

We do know that there was slow growth in the early 1990's and economists will tell that economies are cyclical. Your line graph shows that

Tiger's sycophants & lickspittles want to give all the credit to Tiger for raising tour purses from 70M to 340M. As for the other golf tours, a "rising tide floats all boatrs"

I acknowledge that Tiger had a effect, never have denied it. But many in the media don't acknowledge the other factors and put out the narrative (ie propaganda) that Tiger is entirely responsible for Tour purses going from 70M to 340M. They put on these soundbites, clickbait.

And I am convinced that the "Whole is Greater than the Sum of the Parts"

GPB wrote:Robo:  You are correct we don't what would happen in Tigerless world.

But
We do know that LPGA purses went up after 1997.
We do know that Senior Tour Purses went up after 1997
We do know that Int'l Tour Purses went up after 1997

We do know that there was slow growth in the early 1990's and economists will tell that economies are cyclical.  Your line graph shows that

Tiger's sycophants &  lickspittles want to give all the credit to Tiger for raising tour purses from 70M to 340M.  As for the other golf tours, a "rising tide floats all boatrs"

I acknowledge that Tiger had a effect, never have denied it.  But many in the media don't acknowledge the other factors and put out the narrative (ie propaganda) that Tiger is entirely responsible for Tour purses going from 70M to 340M.  They put on these soundbites, clickbait.

And I am convinced that the "Whole is Greater than the Sum of the Parts"

I don't recall anybody saying Tiger was responsible for 100% of the purse growth once he hit the scene. Only that he was responsible for the ridiculous amount of the increase. Tour executives have said it, TV executives say it, business Publications say it, the players say it... But who knows, maybe they're all wrong and you're right.

super_realist wrote:Nobody is claiming it is AMERICAN sports, golf is a global sport, so compare it to GLOBAL sports like F1, Tennis, Football, Athletics etc

You're missing the point. This is not about the global nature of golf, it's about historic PGA Tour purse growth and what caused it. The income stream that's been fueling purse growth on the PGA Tour has been largely from broadcast television rights fees and advertising/sponsor revenue. And until the mid-2000s The lion's share of that revenue was due USA broadcast rights (Network and Cable).  

But that's changing now, rapidly. The expansion of international rights (like the recently-announced $2 billion deal with Discovery), and the monetizing of streaming, + gaming are more likely to be the keys to future increases. Thus the almost perfect correlation of past US broadcast rights deals to purse growth is likely to start diverging more.

But getting back to looking historically, the big spikes in purse growth have not been random cycles or tied solely to the economy at any given time (even though economy is certainly a factor). They are mostly due to identifiable specific events that have driven them... Like golf coming to TV with Arnold Palmer in the late 50s, the consolidation in maximizing of TV contracts under Beaman in the 70's... And in 1996... The emergence of Tiger Woods and his tremendous impact on generating interest not only when he played but to the sport in general. Translation: broadcast right fees exploded. And according to the TV Executives who were negotiating those deals, the reason they were exploding to the extent the did, was the popularity of Tiger Woods. That's them saying it, not me.

robopz wrote:I don't recall anybody saying Tiger was responsible for 100% of the purse growth once he hit the scene. Only that he was responsible for the ridiculous amount of the increase. Tour executives have said it, TV executives say it, business Publications say it, the players say it... But who knows, maybe they're all wrong and you're right.

Its what they don't say. They make the inference that it is only Tiger. They don't mention the carriage fees from Cable, and Tim Finchem, and the cyclical nature of economics, and the 80 yrs of growth of the PGATour prior to Tiger. The rhetoric and propaganda never discuss the other factors. Its never mentioned. Only Tiger this and Tiger that. Clickbait!!

Again, I am not saying that Tiger was NOT a factor. I am saying that he was not the ONLY FACTOR.

And I will say Tiger is the MAJOR and PRIMARY reason that World Class Players earn Millions of dollars in sponsorships. And I don't think that is necessarily good thing for GPB and ROBOPZ and the rest of the average fan base.

$600 Drivers
$250 shoes
$100 shirts
$1500 for a set of irons

etc etc etc
=============

BTW..are you cherry picking Sean McManus quotes?

How about this one from Sept 2011.

Sean McManus wrote:“There’s upside there, but going forward the business model is not dependent on Tiger-like ratings in the future"

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/sports/golf/pga-tour-reaches-lengthy-deal-with-cbs-and-nbc.html

If you want a very simple snapshot of Tigers impact, look at the crowds he draws on a golf course. It’s ridiculous, borderline embarrassing, how much more of a draw he is than the other players (considering some would have us believe he has no charisma).

GPB wrote:

robopz wrote:I don't recall anybody saying Tiger was responsible for 100% of the purse growth once he hit the scene. Only that he was responsible for the ridiculous amount of the increase. Tour executives have said it, TV executives say it, business Publications say it, the players say it... But who knows, maybe they're all wrong and you're right.

Its what they don't say.  They make the inference that it is only Tiger.  They don't mention the carriage fees from Cable, and Tim Finchem, and the cyclical nature of economics, and the 80 yrs of growth of the PGATour prior to Tiger.  The rhetoric and propaganda never discuss the other factors.  Its never mentioned.  Only Tiger this and Tiger that.  Clickbait!!

Again, I am not saying that Tiger was NOT a factor.  I am saying that he was not the ONLY FACTOR.

And I will say Tiger is the MAJOR and PRIMARY reason that World Class Players earn Millions of dollars in sponsorships.  And I don't think that is necessarily good thing for GPB and ROBOPZ and the rest of the average fan base.

$600 Drivers
$250 shoes
$100 shirts
$1500 for a set of irons

etc etc etc
=============

BTW..are you cherry picking Sean McManus quotes?

How about this one from Sept 2011.

Sean McManus wrote:“There’s upside there, but going forward the business model is not dependent on Tiger-like ratings in the future"

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/sports/golf/pga-tour-reaches-lengthy-deal-with-cbs-and-nbc.html

If you're arguing with someone who thinks Tiger is responsible for ALL the growth in PGA Tour purses since 1997... please direct your comments to them and not me. I only know one guy on earth who thinks that... and we both know who he is, and he's not here.

And as far as McManus... I'm not cherry picking ANYTHING.  What he said back in the late 90's and early 2000's was as Tiger's popularity was driving the huge rights fees explosions... What he was saying in 2011 was post scandal and an accurate reflection on what the TV value was THEN.  And by then the NPV of rights growth had slowed to basically nil.  The new contract was reported to reflect at TOTAL 27% increase over 9 years... or 3% a year.... quite different from the heady days of the "Tiger bump".  The growth rate of purses since the signing of that contract have been basically tracking that 3% per year, EXCEPT for a bit of a purse war going on with Majors/Players and the addition of few additional rich Asian events to the PGAT. Raw growth is running 28%  for the first 7 years of that contract, about 17% CPI adjusted.

PS... you mentioned in an earlier post that LPGA and Champions Tour purses were growing as well... I checked... and yes they were... this much (all based on average purse per event, un-adjusted for inflation. I took the per event approach because Champions Tour event count had gone down so dramatically, from 41 to 29 in the period)...

1996-2006
92.7% - Champions Tour
123.6% - LPGA
252.1% - PGA Tour

robopz wrote:

super_realist wrote:Nobody is claiming it is AMERICAN sports, golf is a global sport, so compare it to GLOBAL sports like F1, Tennis, Football, Athletics etc

You're missing the point. This is not about the global nature of golf, it's about historic PGA Tour purse growth and what caused it. The income stream that's been fueling purse growth on the PGA Tour has been largely from broadcast television rights fees and advertising/sponsor revenue. And until the mid-2000s The lion's share of that revenue was due USA broadcast rights (Network and Cable).  

But that's changing now, rapidly. The expansion of international rights (like the recently-announced $2 billion deal with Discovery), and the monetizing of streaming, + gaming are more likely to be the keys to future increases. Thus the almost perfect correlation of past US broadcast rights deals to purse growth is likely to start diverging more.

But getting back to looking historically, the big spikes in purse growth have not been random cycles or tied solely to the economy at any given time (even though economy is certainly a factor). They are mostly due to identifiable specific events that have driven them... Like golf coming to TV with Arnold Palmer in the late 50s, the consolidation in maximizing of TV contracts under Beaman in the 70's... And in 1996... The emergence of Tiger Woods and his tremendous impact on generating interest not only when he played but to the sport in general. Translation: broadcast right fees exploded. And according to the TV Executives who were negotiating those deals, the reason they were exploding to the extent the did, was the popularity of Tiger Woods. That's them saying it, not me.

One of the big things overlooked here is the advent of the internet and widely available broadband and the impact that had on all sports.
I think Woods has had an impact on the viewing public, but I don't think he's had a massive impact on people playing the game. More courses are closing now that at any time in history and more people are giving up golf now than at any other time.

Robo: Your the one that keeps responding to my posts.

robopz wrote:1. Golf purses were growing at a much SLOWER rate than the other 3 sports in the 8-year period prior to the "Tiger Bump"

2. Golf purses grew at a much FASTER rate than the other 3 sports during the 8 years of the "Tiger Bump"

3. Once Golf Purses had reached their saturation point.. they returned to their SLOWER growth rates than the other 3 sports again. Here's the data...

Economists call this a "correction"

super_realist wrote:One of the big things overlooked here is the advent of the internet and widely available broadband and the impact that had on all sports.
I think Woods has had an impact on the viewing public, but I don't think he's had a massive impact on people playing the game. More courses are closing now that at any time in history and more people are giving up golf now than at any other time.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the growth rates of PGA Tour purses. There have been both very high and very low cycles of rates of PGA Tour purse growth all throughout the great expansion of courses/players from the 1950s through 2000.

As an aside... From what data I have been able to collect, there was approximately, 10k golf courses worldwide in 1960, 20k in 1980 and 30k in 2000. That number got up to approx 39k by 2011, but has retrenched back to mid 38k range. The recent numbers came from various R&A World Golf Course Supply reports. The 10, 20, 30 thing was from a couple of general comments I've seen & read from people who seem like they should know, but I have not been able to verify.

GPB wrote:

robopz wrote:1. Golf purses were growing at a much SLOWER rate than the other 3 sports in the 8-year period prior to the "Tiger Bump"

2. Golf purses grew at a much FASTER rate than the other 3 sports during the 8 years of the "Tiger Bump"

3. Once Golf Purses had reached their saturation point.. they returned to their SLOWER growth rates than the other 3 sports again. Here's the data...

Economists call this a "correction"

If thats the case, we should be seeing that next 250% growth spurt any day now. That should put total purses well over a  billion $ in the next 5 years and the average tour purse at about $20 million and Majors/Players around $25-30 mil each. Awesome.   But in the meantime I'll just sit here still wondering why that isn't happening, should have already started...